Vyasa

[Guest guest]

>>This is why Krishna-dvaipayana Vyasa is sometimes described as special

among >>the Vyasas, for *at *this *moment *Vishnu *is *present *within *him,

and not

>>within the other previous vyasas:

(my italics)

 

>If I understand you correctly, all Veda-vyaasas are shakti-avesha

>avataaras (empowered jiivas such as Paraashara), but in the most

>recent Veda-Vyaasa is Naaraayana Himself, or in other words not

>merely an empowered jiiva.

 

I believe JN prabhu is saying that Vishnu is present in Krishna Dvaipayana at

this particular time and the latter is therefore a shaktyavesha avatara *at

this time* just as the others used to be (but now aren't). Therefore we have

three distinct views on Vyasadeva here:

 

1. Krsna-dvaipayana is a Vishnu-tattva and the other Vyasas are saktyavesa

(HKS)

2. All are shaktyavesha's at one point in time or another. (JNd)

and

3. only Krsna-dvaipayana is a shaktyavesha and the others are at best

vibhutis (less powerful than shaktyaveshas) of the Lord. (mine).

 

ys

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

> 3. only Krsna-dvaipayana is a shaktyavesha and the others are at best

> vibhutis (less powerful than shaktyaveshas) of the Lord. (mine).

 

I don't want to be repetative, so sorry for this. But how would you

reconcile these statements from Vishnu Purana which state every Vyasa to

be vishnu's "svarupa"? They are not vibhutis according to this.

 

vedamekam caturbhedam kritva sakhasatairvibhuh

karoti bahulam bhuyo vedavyasasvarupadhrik

 

"In the Dvapara yuga, He assumes the form of Vedavyasa, to divide the

one Veda into four, and then into hundreds of branches."

 

dvapare dvapare vishnurvyasarupi mahamune

vedamekam sa bahudha kurute jagato hitah

 

"In every single dvapara yuga, Vishnu in the form of Mahamuni Vyasa

divides the single veda into many for the benefit of the world."

 

Again, dvapare dvapare is clear that it is every single Vyasa that is

Vishnu.

 

And:

 

vedavyasabhidhana tu sa murtirmadhuvidvishah

 

"That form that Sri Hari assumes to divide the Vedas is known by the

nomenclature 'Veda-vyasa'."

 

There will be many other similar statements throught the Puranas, but

unfortunately I don't have time to look them up right now. Nevertheless,

these are quite clear and direct.

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

> vedamekam caturbhedam kritva sakhasatairvibhuh

> karoti bahulam bhuyo vedavyasasvarupadhrik

>

> "In the Dvapara yuga, He assumes the form of Vedavyasa, to divide the

> one Veda into four, and then into hundreds of branches."

 

The translation "in the dvapara yuga" comes from the first stanza of the

next shloka:

 

vedamstu dvapare vyasya...

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

For the purpose of helping those just now joining the list with this ongoing

thread, I added a few background points in brackets () in this reply.

 

[There is a compiler of the Vedas (called Vyasa) in every Dvapara yuga.

Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa who is the most recent is special according to the

Vishnu-purana. We are discussing the status of this Vyasa and the other

Vyasas (Visnu-tattva vs. empowered souls (shaktyavesha's) vs. great sages

(vibhuti). ]

 

> But how would you

>reconcile these statements from Vishnu Purana which state every Vyasa to

>be vishnu's "svarupa"? They are not vibhutis according to this. ..

vedavyasasvarupadhrik---"He assumes the form of Vedavyasa",

dvapare dvapare vishnurvyasarupi---"In every single dvapara yuga, Vishnu in

the form >of Mahamuni Vyasa

 

 

The argument for Vyasa-s all being saktyavesa-avataras hinges on the term

"svarupa". The words "svarupa" and "amsa" in technical Gaudiya discussions

always refer to the Lord's own Vishnu-tattva expansions. These words are

used at the outset of the Caitanya Caritamrta in Adi 1.65, 1.98, and later on

in Madhya 20.315-317.

 

However, the usage in Vishnu-purana is clearly different: The word "amsha" is

used in such a broad way to indicate the vibhuti forms involved in

maintenance like Indra, etc. in 3.2.52: "in a portion of His essence (amsha)

associated with goodness, He--as the Manus, the kings, the gods, and their

Indras, as well as the seven Rishis--is the preserver of the world." (Wilson)

These sages and demigods are called "amsha".

 

The next verses (54-57) proceed to explain how Lord Vishnu preserves in

respect to the four yugas. The following words are used: "kapilAdisvarUpa"

"cakravartisvarUpa" "vedavyAsasvarUpa" and "kalkisvarUpi". And the term

"svarupa" continues to be used in the beginning of chapter 3 in reference to

the Vyasas as you have quoted (above).

 

In this Visnupurana passage, the word svarupa obviously doesn't mean

Visnu-tattva since Kapila (Bhaktivinoda cited in CC Madhya vol.8), Vedavyasa,

and Kalki (Laghu-B) are generally (if not always) empowered jiva-tattvas.

Therefore, the attempt to import technical Gaudiya usages into this passage

simply doesn't work. Therefore we can't rely on our usage of the term

"svarupa" to determine the status of the Vyasas.

 

Regarding the individual verses:

 

> "In the Krita yuga Lord Vishnu assumes the form of Kapila

(kapiladisvarupadhrik) to impart the supreme knowledge to all living

entities for their welfare."

 

The word is "Kapila-adi" so Kapila, being the first well known example, is

mentioned as a spiritual instructor in the Satya-yuga. This does not say he

specifically appears in every Satya yuga.

 

 

 

> "In the end of the Kali yuga, Sri Hari again appears in the form of

> Kalki (kalkisvarupi) to reestablish the wicked in the path of religion."

 

Again, Kalki is not a Vishnu-tattva, so the word svarupa can't be read in a

Gaudiya sense in this Vishnu-purana passage.

 

In conclusion:

Regarding the various views of Vyasas' statuses expressed on this list: there

is no evidence that the Vyasas in general are saktyavesha avataras. Krsna

Dvaipayana is being singled out as "Narayana" definitely indicates his

uniqueness, namely for his awesome work in compiling the Mahabharata (and

perhaps the Srimad Bhagavatam).

 

When these points (the broad usages of terms in Vishnu-purana, and the Vyasa

passage in particular) are taken together with the Gaudiya references to

Vyasadeva, it is clear that the Krsna Dvaipayana of this kalpa ought to be

considered a saktyavesha-avatara and the other Vyasas are of lesser potency,

i.e. vibhutis. Srila Prabhupada always refers to Srila Vyasadeva as a

saktyavesha avatara. However, based on the Laghu-B passage on Vyasa, Srila

Rupa Gosvami admits the possibility that Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa is a

Visnu-tattva. Here is Baladeva's gloss of Rupa Gosvami's words, that Vidvan

Gauranga Prabhu suggested we look at:

(Does it add anything more definitive?)

 

visheSeNa-sAkSAdIshvaratvena || shrUyate nArAyaNiye | apagatam Antaratamo

yasyasa kashcit tapasvI vipraH | atrasAkSAdIshvare dvaipAyane |

so'pi--apAntaratamAH | tasmAditi | sanakAdivat Avesho'yamiti kecidAhuH ||

 

There is always the possibility that in other kalpas, the Vyasa who appears

with Krishna is a Visnu-tattva, but I don't think that issue is addressed in

Gaudiya literature.

 

 

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

> > "In the end of the Kali yuga, Sri Hari again appears in the form of

> > Kalki (kalkisvarupi) to reestablish the wicked in the path of

religion."

>

> Again, Kalki is not a Vishnu-tattva, so the word svarupa can't be read in

a

> Gaudiya sense in this Vishnu-purana passage.

 

No, this argument is simply unacceptable. You might make the case that such

a statement means only that He is actually an empowered jiiva, but by no

stretch of the imagination can you assert that a statement like "Sri Hari

again appears in the form of *****...." really says that ***** is a vibhuuti

only. Granted, such statements might be found in regards to Lord Vishnu

appearing as Brahmaa or Shiva (I say "might" because I don't recall explicit

references, though I remember reading such statements), but in that case,

there is clear precedent for using a secondary interpretation given the

overwhelming evidence that Brahmaa and Shiva are subordinate entities to

Vishnu.

 

In this particular case, there is overwhelming evidence of Vyaasa's

divinity. I think we have already seen it quoted here. To assert that every

single statement of this type really means that He is not the Lord, but a

vibhuuti instead, is not just unprecedented, it is just plain unscholarly.

More importantly, no one in our sampradaaya has made such an assertion (to

the effect that Vyaasa is a vibhuuti). And so far, unless I'm mistaken, I've

seen no explicit references in shaastra describing Vyaasa as a vibhuuti.

 

As moderator I do not wish to end any discussion that continues to generate

new ideas. But in this case, given the absence of evidence against Vyaasa's

divinity (whether as Lord Himself or shaktyaavesha), my recommendation is to

put the discussion on hold at least until such evidence can be found. Again,

I would point out that such evidence can be either (1) explicit shaastric

evidence (with Sanskrit verse, verse numbers and translation provided) or

(2) statements of previous aachaaryas in our sampradaaya (with details of

where it is written, who wrote it, original text, etc). If neither of the

above can be provided, then it really is not relevant to achintya,

especially when examples of (1) and (2) are provided against the theory.

 

Achintya is not the place to express personal opinions, especially after

contradictory evidence has been brought to bear against them. Please bear

this in mind before posting. If there are any questions, concerns, or

comments about this policy, especially as related to specific discussion

threads, please write to me directly and I will assist in sorting them out.

 

your servant,

 

Krishna Susarla

Moderator, Achintya

 

p.s. An interesting discussion that might be worth having, and which is also

rather relevant here, is whether or not shaktyaavesha avataaras are or are

not "Vishnu-tattva." My initial impression was no, but in retrospect that

might not be correct. I'm sure there is plenty of writing by Srila

Prabhupada on this subject that can be referred to.

[Guest guest]

<<<The argument for Vyasa-s all being saktyavesa-avataras

hinges on the term "svarupa". The words "svarupa" and "amsa"

in technical Gaudiya discussions always refer to the Lord's

own Vishnu-tattva expansions.>>>

 

My argument really has nothing to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Vishnu Purana is a Puranic text, and the words should be

understood according to puranic usage.

 

<<<However, the usage in Vishnu-purana is clearly different:

The word "amsha" is used in such a broad way to indicate the

vibhuti forms involved in maintenance like Indra, etc. in

3.2.52. These sages and demigods are called "amsha".>>>

 

Text 3.2.52 states the manus, indras, etc., are "satvikah

amshah", whereas later in regards to Vyasa, (text 3.3.5) it is

stated: dvapare dvapare vishnurvyasarupi mahamune.

 

Wether or not there is a difference between satvikah amshah

and vishnur vyasarupi is up to individuals to decide. Either

that or they can read an appropriate commentary to the verses

and accept traditional opinions.

 

Either way, I think the difference is quite clear for those

who wish to see it.

 

<<<Again, Kalki is not a Vishnu-tattva, so the word svarupa

can't be read in a Gaudiya sense in this Vishnu-purana

passage.>>>

 

But Prabhupada has said both Kapila and Kalki are

Vishnu-tattva, though he also says they are saktyavesha

simultaneously (as is the case with sesha and others).

 

Regardless, I have no desire to read a Puranic text according

to Gaudiya technical usage, and I don't see why we should

bring such a usage up. The terms are clear on their own usage.

What is vishnu rupa and what is satvika amsha? Is there a

difference between the two? Does it matter? Do the terms

hari-rupa, vishnu-rupa and madhuvidvisha-murti mean the same

as satvika amsha?

 

<<<In conclusion: Regarding the various views of Vyasas'

statuses expressed on this list: there is no evidence that

the Vyasas in general are saktyavesha avataras.>>>

 

Except for the obvious and literal statements made therein:

 

dvapare dvapare vishnurvyasarupi mahamune

vedamekam sa bahudha kurute jagato hitah

 

"In every dvapara yuga, Vishnu in the form of Mahamuni Vyasa

divides the single veda into many for the benefit of the

world."

 

vedavyasabhidhana tu sa murtirmadhuvidvishah

 

"That form that Sri Hari assumes to divide the Vedas is known

by the nomenclature 'Veda-vyasa'."

 

<<<When these points (the broad usages of terms in

Vishnu-purana, and the Vyasa passage in particular)...>>>

 

Where are the other uses of vishnu rupa that refer to

vibhutis? I failed to notice them.

 

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

<<<Again, Kalki is not a Vishnu-tattva, so the word svarupa

can't be read in Gaudiya sense in this Vishnu-purana

passage.>>>

 

One other point, whatever we take the word svarupa to mean in

these passages, it must be uniformly applied to all the four

personalities being mentioned (Kapila, Kalki, Vyasa, etc.)

Thus if we consider it to refer to a vibhuti, it must refer to

Kalki and Kapila as vibhutis as well. But the use of the words

"punar harih" would suggest it does not refer to vibhutis.

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at